Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 30: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:43, 30 November 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 29 November	1 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep on the basis that the sources now in the article show the concept to be notable enough for retention. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People watching

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the expression "people watching" is certainly very common, there does not seem to be a definition beyond the meaning of the two words. The sources provided here are more like examples and do not define the concept well enough for an encyclopedia article. Besides the sources have little to do with what is claimed in the article. Skylark777 (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the article can be better with an expansion, Google Books reveals books from where information might be incorporated. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We can also merge this to Body language. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that is not what people usually mean when they talk about people watching, including the sources provided in the article. It's usually about going someplace and watching people walk around and interact in public.Borock (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's stack of books with this title including Peoplewatching: The Desmond Morris Guide to Body Language; People Watching: Social, Perceptual, and Neurophysiological Studies of Body Perception; People Watching; Everybody's Guide to People Watching, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep Most of the books mentioned are about Body language, certainly a notable topic. However the article seems to be talking about a recreational activity, and this is the way I've heard the expression used. I'm not sure it goes beyond: "People watching is watching people." Borock (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not discuss topic in depth, or even define it. They are just examples. People watching is not body language so don't merge or redirect there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- a notable topic Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As other editors have noted, this is a well-documented phenomenon with plenty of coverage in reliable sources (see, e.g., this Huffington Post article and this article from National Geographic; I added these sources to the article). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. I have changed my vote to keep.Borock (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous books written on the subject, often discussed in reliable sources, well-known, this should be a simple keep. Jacona (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the phenomenon exists, maybe under other names. Zezen (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Arabic Technical Transliteration System

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability, no sources, looks like an original research, nobody knows if it really exists. Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bikdash Arabic Transliteration Rules

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promoting, no notability, no independent sources, looks like an original research. Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Azmi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable person. Musa Talk 12:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Not notable, un useful article. --Shekhar 07:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is biased The name of Rehan is also included in book published and can be published on demand by Books LLC see here [1]. Nannadeem (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually checked the Books LLC article, you would have known that this "publisher" copies articles from Wikipedia and sells those as books. You should never use Books LLC as a source here. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now my point is clear. One can earn through WP deleted articles(+talks). But general people cannot receive info without cost. What a notability and reliable source is one discussing. I am afraid of partnership as well. Nannadeem (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Allow me to break up my argument into the following:

Google Books: 7 hits, 6 of which are copies of Wikipedia content (=not a reliable source). That 1 other hit is his name in a credits list (=not enough coverage). Ergo: fails WP:GNG.
Google News: 5 hits, 4 of which mention someone else with the same name (=irrelevant sources). That other 1 hit is the poet Rehan Azmi mentioned in a list of attendees of a funeral (=not enough coverage). Ergo: fails WP:GNG.
Note about using Dawn as a source: this "newspaper" claims that Rehan Azmi is mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records as the 7th speediest writer of poetry. Record for being the 7TH, seriously? Looking at the wikipage history, this dubious "fact" was present since the beginning in 2009, while Dawn published its article in May 2012. Seems like they copied Wikipedia without actually checking Guinness (he really does not show up there when searching for "Rehan Azmi", you can check for yourself). In other words, I doubt that Dawn is a reliable newspaper.
Remaining sources (al-qayim.tv and shiamultimedia.com) are even more WP:QUESTIONABLE.

Total verdict: there are is not enough reliable information available for us to write a reliably sourced article, thus Rehan Azmi fails the general notability guideline and this article should be deleted. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suggest the nominator for withdrawal of his move of deletion the article. This reliable source endorses the subject's notability. Later any time, I will search more sources to add. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is no need to have an article on every person named by DAWN or The Express Tribune.--Musa^Talk ☻ 19:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal view, not the Wikipedia guidelines, does not work here. We have to follow the rules; there are not any policies that restrict such intentions that you suggest. Read the policies before nominating for deletion.Justice007 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still say he is a non notable person. You need to do your homework. These sources are not enough. Can you find more? and also read WP:Ignore all rules.--Musa^Talk ☻ 00:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HyperGaruda makes a convincing case of non-notability. I've cleaned up the article and its few sources are weak. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic theory about quality variation in Dawn

@GorgeCustersSabre: I was also quite surprised that there was such low quality content in one of the oldest English-language newspapers of Pakistan. But I think I have a theory about that. Recently I've been cleaning up Mai Safoora, which referred to only 1 source: DAWN. I found it somewhat awkward that the news article started with what seems to be an advert and the rest of the text did not seem to be written by a professional journalist. Then I checked the author: "From the newspaper", the same "author" who published the article I had linked earlier. After browsing through "From the newspaper"'s articles, it occurred to me that this specific "author" is probably where readers' letters are sent to and indeed many of its articles are signed at the bottom by people who clearly are no journalists, like here. In all, I would say that Dawn's articles are only reliable sources if they have been published by non-random authors, such as this article by Atika Rehman & Ali Akbar and this one by the "The Newspaper's Staff Reporter". We should definitely be careful with articles published by "From the newspaper". - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HyperGaruda. That's very interesting. I'll take a look through a sample of Dawn articles. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy at best for now as none of this solidly suggests a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Conflict of interest Please see the edit summary of the page in the current week. Can one vote for deletion same day after copy-edit/clean-up? I think he must first undo all his editing before voting for the deletion. I see no familiarity with the subject who are voting for deletion. Nannadeem (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Appears to have been a coatrack too, until a recent nuking by Georgecuster. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking at the article as it now stands (thankyou User:GorgeCustersSabre for cleaning it up), subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. I know notability does not rely on the article's content but if any editors can find, for example, reliably sourced reviews of his books that would be very helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Carmody

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This child actor has made minor appearances in a few TV episodes and 1 film. No results at Google News. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Classic case of a former child actor with no better notability and improvement to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of adequate coverage, especially for someone who made all their TV/film appearances before age 10.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NDTV 25 Greatest Global Living Indians

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A trophy-looting ceremony held by a media house with no notable coverage outside their own publications. Dubious notability. Please don't show Google hit count as your rationale for keep as many of those are published by NDTV or are just news aggregators and mirrors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: or merge to main article NDTV , surely lacks notability Shrikanthv (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Yann (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gomolo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough third party/independent sources and the lines "Gomolo is a website with one of the largest database of Indian movies. " with unreliable sources look promotional. The Avengers 08:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not able to find sufficient coverage, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places...Vanamonde93 (talk)
Delete as above. Yann (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, it was created for promotional purpose.Suman420 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Coast (Band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this band is non-notable. I bring it here because a csd tag was removed. —teb728 t c 08:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC and the general notability guideline. Once they start to release records/gain national exposure, they might have a chance, but for now it's simply too soon for this band to have an article. — sparklism ^hey! 13:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned above, nothing to suggest even general notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney_Derby_(AFL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was deleted in January 2014 as an example of WP:TOOSOON, with no independent citations that verify that this is a notable rivalary. Over 3 months ago I made a request asking for comment about why the article was recreated, and had no responses. The article still has no citations that display any notability, it has no enduring historical significance, no widespread national or international impact, has no in-depth coverage beyond a typical AFL game and nothing exists that changes the admin decision to delete it. This article should be G4 speedy deleted, and salted to prevent recreation, as this article is a non-encyclopaedic, synthetic marketing gimmick. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "I want Sydney Derby to only mean an equally insignificant soccer game, and will continue to scream in that supermarket aisle until it happens" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.209.71 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rivalry. The lack of significant coverage indicates a lack of notability. But the declining attendence figures say it best. --Bejnar (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing's changed since the last AfD. Utter lack of significant coverage for the derby as a phenomenon unto itself. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately because of that first AfD, it seems we have to go through AfD again so here are....My searches simply found nothing better and the current article is simply not convincing enough of better notability and improvement. FWIW, my original PROD message was "Perhaps not speedy material per se, but my searches simply found nothing better and the current article is not convincing of solid notability.". Notifying past taggers and also otherwise tag users TheRedPenOfDoom, Maproom and Northamerica1000. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are not turning up evidence that this is more than a Marketing/SEO firm going about its business. No encyclopaedic notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article about notability. I would not have accepted as AFC, and see no reason to keep it, and I speak as an official member of the non-deletionist movement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for Tamar and the founder reveals no independent, reliable sources. Two articles cited as being in The Times are behind a paywall so I can't access them. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Block (Internet). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banhammer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NEOLOGISM. The article has already been through two AfDs (deleted the first time and redirected to Ban (law) the second) and a deletion review (which upheld the decision). I would also be open to the idea of merging and redirecting it to Ban (law) (once again) or Block (Internet), though if we were to go that route, I would lean towards the latter article. Graham (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Block (Internet) or delete. It's imperfect, but Block (Internet) is pretty much the same thing. This seems more applicable to Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary. It surely gets used in reliable sources, but so do lots of other phrases. Merely being used doesn't make a neologism notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Block (Internet). Seeing how the sourcing remains the same as before, the article has not been significantly expanded to show notability or warrant a split. It seems a section at most in the Block article would be sufficient for the size of content in question. I am unclear why the article was restored after the AfD otherwise. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Nominator did not advance a rationale and no current !votes advocate deletion -- Speedy keep criteria 1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaban Demiraj

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:A3. Literally nothing but the subject's bolded name. Okay, maybe not completely nothing (Appears I spoke way too soon). Regardless, content is still way too insufficient, per WP:A7. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll retract my statement earlier. I think the Deletionist within me got way too ahead of myself. Didn't occur to me to look at the Albanian site. I'll do a better job next time. Sorry, all! GabeIglesia (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we shouldn't make a judgment here based on the length of this page. Other language pages appear to have a lot more content on this subject (although I can't read it so I have no idea what is being said) https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaban_Demiraj. On the face of it, there appears to be something to be discussed about the notability of the subject as per WP:NACADEMIC, although finding English-language sources could be a challenge. JMWt (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to pass WP:PROF criteria C3 and C6 as head of a national academy (even based only on the minimal version of the article after the "spoke too soon" comment above; certainly it is very far from an A7 speedy deletion) and I found several Albanian-language obituaries in what look like reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under SK#1, nom fails to advance a deletion rationale. I have added a {{cite book}} to Robert Elsie's Historical Dictionary of Albania where subject gets a whole page, and subject's notability under the professor test is hard to question. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs translation from the Albanian. Wrote some important works on Albanian language also.Resnjari (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eli everett

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:A7. No sources, Wikilinks, or notability. It also appears that it was previously deleted a couple of days ago. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unsourced WP:SPA biography of an actor whose work to date looks miles short of WP:NACTOR. Rightly tagged as CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baradwaj Rangan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A film critic of The Hindu newspaper but not qualified for standalone article. Yes he does write movie reviews; so does 500 other critics in India. The Avengers 04:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He's not just a critic, he's also a national award winner.^[1], which alone should be enough for notability. Coderzombie (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He is a recipient of the National Film Award for Best Film Critic, which alone makes him notable. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need some third party reliable sources other than BITSAA and The Hindu, where he is employed. Indian Govt. website will mention his name if he got National award. --The Avengers 02:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. The official announcement. Coderzombie (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Avengers: The same sources lie before you as well. A badly-written article always doesn't equate to an AFD. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While my comment is neither about keeping nor deleting his article, it can be expanding using the existing sources, which establish his notability. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is all about the notability the subject, not the article. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coderzombie and Vensatry. The award is sourced in the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award is quite sufficient; then there is his position as deputy editor of what I believe is a national newspaper in India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article is not well written but that does not mean it should be deleted. There are enough sources to keep this article on Wikipedia. There are lots of wikipedian who can make this article better. Suman420 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Lea'alafa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has played for Solomon Islands National Team in Olympic Football qualifier and also per this and this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, has to play at the olympic games, qualifier does not suffice. Article also fails WP:GNG, not enough mention of the subject. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question This proposed deletion raises a question in my mind. If you are a member of the Solomon Islands national football team, I woud suggest you are significant in the Soloman's. Given that the Solomon's only have a population of 600,000 there are unlikely to be many who would be considered significant on an international basis, therefore, does this mean that we through our policy are actively discriminating against small (low population) countries and should this issue be looked at further? Even the project page for the Solomon Islands only list 4 participants and they aren't linked to this AfD NealeFamily (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I don't understand how this is discriminatory. In my opinion there hasn't been enough coverage in the media to pass WP:GNG and he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasnt played for the senior national team or in a full pro league therefore i have nominated it for deletion. This article is being judged with the same criteria as any other article would be. Simione001 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't the Auckland team a professional team? NealeFamily (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, semi-pro. Simione001 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability criteria, also may be to soon judging by comments in local press. NealeFamily (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tier 1 matches are between senior national teams. Since FIFA restricts the Men's Olympic Tournament to a U-23 squad, the qualifiers are not considered Tier 1 matches. WP:NFOOTY specifically includes an exception for the Olympic tournament itself, but not for qualifiers. Fails NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 2:1, but the one "keep" isn't very convincing. Sandstein 09:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PropertyGuru Malaysia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, promotional, and cannot be verified. The only actually accessible sites are the company's own pages, and its self-writen description on Bloomberg. Everything else is a dead link. (ref 8 is a specialist paid site, but it looks like it too would be a directory entry) DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- cannot be verified
- promotional
  - Personally I find it informative. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

I've already commented on the problems of some of these sites. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectPlazza

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by new user, marred with errors, no lead, written like an advertisement, and borders on not noteworthy to have its own Wikipedia article. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, the page can be marked for speedy deletion, I don't think AFD is necessary for it. The creator has also removed AFD template.Kavdiamanju (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per nom. Clearly non-neutral and non-notable. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Irish presidential election, 1997#Derek Nally. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Nally

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable unsuccessful political candidate. Quis separabit? 03:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish presidential election, 1997. Snappy (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish presidential election, 1997#Derek Nally. sst✈^(discuss) 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish presidential election, 1997#Derek Nally as suggested. There is insufficient reliably sourced material to support a standalone article at this time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Stockade Football Club (Stockade FC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails notability guidelines. Not a fully professional team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is recent precedent and current consensus that 4th-tier clubs in the United States are notable due to being eligible to compete in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. I personally do not agree with it, but that is the current consensus. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Rapids FC, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real San Jose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco Stompers FC, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ann Arbor, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartans Futbol Club.) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4th tier Clubs in US football are notable and further are eligible to playing in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, recent consensus shows clubs playing at this level are considered notable. Needs renaming though. Giant Snowman 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information provided above seems to provide recent proof of a consensus on this particular topic. BobbyAFC (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dePRODed it because I thought it needed more discussion and possibly improvement. Now !voting keep given that it appears to be covered by consensus. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a load of fecal matter. This club is not yet notable. Just because other teams at this level may be notable is no reason that this club is. It's like saying that because two musicians are on the same label that they're both notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think these semi-pro teams - specifically NPSL clubs - are an important part of the American soccer landscape. Though the article name should definitely be changed. American Money (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not about importance but notability. See WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current consensus is that teams at this level are notable. Fenix down (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Show me that this team is notable not that other teams may be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well aside from the fact that consensus is that teams in that league are inherently notable, two seconds on google shows:

this
this
and this for coverage of the start of the club which is more than adequate for content. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL coverage. Fine. But again, just because other teams at this level are notable does not mean that all teams at this level are notable. You've all drunk the kool aide and have lost the capacity to think independently and critically. WP:GNG must be met not some esoteric concept that they should be notable so we will say that they are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have another look at WP:LOCAL as that is an essay on places, not organisations. It does however contain a quote from the guideline WP:N that states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources provided above are reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage of a club that plays in a league, the participants in which are eligible for national competition. you initial deletion rationale is fatally flawed, there is no guideline, nor any wider consensus that full professionalism is a benchmark for club notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it was anything but an essay but it's the spirit of the essay that applies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Ramachandra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person, clearly written by the person himself, or on behalf of, as an advertisement Midas02 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing better and the current article is not convincing enough to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - He is an upcoming author and also a entrepreneur, perhaps article need to be fine tuned. His works are fairly well known in Bangalore, capital of the indian state of Karnataka. Some links here Book ISBN-13-9788128025648 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakishor (talk • contribs) 06:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention of subject in reliable sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Midas02 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by the nominator. utcursch | talk 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sterner's Studio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable building. A search for sources comes up empty. Neither the glassworker who operates the studio nor the architect have articles here (though the architect has an article at the French Wikipedia), so there's nowhere to redirect to. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn based on the sources given below. Thanks for the sources, guys. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, then trout nominator with a really big slimy trout: This article, on what looks like a very interesting and quite possibly significant piece of Art Nouveau architecture, was nominated for deletion four minutes after it was posted. That is just not acceptable. Let the author do his/her work first. Put it on your watchlist and get back to it a week later. Or how about trying to be helpful to a new user by suggesting what s/he needs to do to improve the article? --Hegvald (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hegvald: That's very odd. I did a search for the building's name and there weren't any sources. How could this have happened? The sources Oakshade gave didn't appear in the search either. Anyway, once both users have replied here I'm going to withdraw the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You can withdraw at any point. Please be more careful in the future and don't shoot from the hip at new articles (unless it is some clearly defamatory BLP or something). --Hegvald (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It happened because "Sterner's Studio" is just a rough translation of the native French title so as most or all the sources are in French it's hardly, if at all, going to show up in searches. --Oakshade (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An occupier or an architect of a building in Belgium not having in English is not proper rationale of a building being not notable. Doing an English title search of a topic with a different native language title is not the best way to perform WP:BEFORE either. The Brussels Times calls the building "striking." [2] The Ministere de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale has an extensive report on the building.[3] Nominating an article within four minutes of article-creation isn't helpful to anyone. --Oakshade (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinthe Bouchard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and animal trainer, making no especially strong claim of notability for either endeavour. As written, this literally just asserts that she exists, and cites mostly primary sources for the fact — the closest thing here to a reliable source is a blurb which is not nearly substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG if it's the article's only independent source. As always, a person does not gain an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that she exists — it takes reliable source coverage to get an article, but not nearly enough of that has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She shows up in several news sources and is on a TV show. She should pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I forgot to add that I put in more sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk)

Yep, that works. Thanks for that, consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Sparkle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable newspaper JMHamo (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is nice they do this, but it clearly does not warrant a Wikipedia article.DreamGuy (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and no claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Does not seem to meet notability standards. JTtheOG (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabe (Get Loose Crew song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These two songs, much a like the MC Shadow songs I listed yesterday, do not qualify for their own article. The #5 chart position on "Wannabe" is at an unrecognized chart per WP:CHART. The other song has no claim for notability at all. The sparse information contained in these two articles can easily be written into the album which they are on (Get Loose Crew). rayukk | talk 18:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. rayukk | talk 18:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. rayukk | talk 18:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive claim of notability under WP:NSONGS, apart from charting on a non-notable chart that doesn't pass Wikipedia:Record charts. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These songs do have Historical significance in Canadian Music and relevancy. The CHEER Music Pool Chart was reporting at a time when (which has link to verify its existence) this genre of music was being suppressed. It was a pioneer chart reporting rap/urban music in Canada in its infancy. The artists on the chart that surround MC Shadow are undisputable international music & entertainment icons. They are respected and notable pioneers in the US created music form. The fact that this Canadian artist in his teens was ranked alongside these artists that were already established is remarkable and 'encyclopeic' in spirit and in content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldschoolmc (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Get Loose Crew Song is also, significant to the Canadian Music Genre and the genre as the artists historic significance within Canada and Globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldschoolmc (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Maestro Fresh Wes, Dream Warriors, MCJ and Cool G and Devon, who all got onto actual wikinotable IFPI-certified charts, would be fascinated to hear that this "CHEER Music Pool Chart" (a private service of a membership organization for club DJs, not certified by any chart licensing agency or covered by any reliable sources besides itself) was the only chart a Canadian hip hop song could possibly have appeared on in that era. And what's "encyclopedic in spirit and in content" is reliable source coverage, of which exactly none has been shown here, not opinion-based assertions of how "remarkable" you personally think any unsourced accomplishment may have been. And if you think I'm being dismissive of the genre, you might want to check the edit history on Canadian hip hop to see who originally created it in the first place, and has been the single most frequent editor of it since. I'm fully aware of the barriers to mainstream attention that have often plagued Canadian hip hop, but it isn't Wikipedia's job to rectify that imbalance ourselves, if we have to lean on unreliable sources, assertions of private personal knowledge whose accuracy we have no way of verifying because they aren't sourced at all, and/or non-notable record charts to do it. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clear evidence of notability that obviously meets the relevant guidelines. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale by Bearcat. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M. Baker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mid-ranking officer with a second-level and a third-level decoration. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Four victories, so not an ace either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also honorable, but also just not notable. DreamGuy (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above editor. Honorable, but not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otto K. Zwingman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Private who won a single second-level decoration plus a very minor decoration (not even third-level). Nowhere near meeting WP:SOLDIER. One of countless thousands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Honorable, just not notable. DreamGuy (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsira Suknidze

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 15:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't even argue for notability. DreamGuy (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then she went back to her obscure life. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:BLP1E. sst✈^(discuss) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Nemsitsveridze

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT, no reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the winner of national pageant. Additionally there was a national scandal regarding this pageant; Tamar was originally third and then the winner and runner-up were disqualified as they both lied about being married and one of them also lied about having a criminal record.[4] —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bookselves

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source The Daily California provides any non-trivial RS coverage of us. At this point, just another fledgling business with no real notability yet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Major sources only relate to a point that has nothing to do with company, really. Only source to talk about the company is a college paper. No. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a new start-up venture, sourced largely to its own blog, aside from one pre-launch start-up pitch-piece on what they plan to do. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete: This article by Berkeleyside - a major publication on the East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) provides credible citation for the startup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashmahendra (talk • contribs) — Yashmahendra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Frazier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is debatable; a high school athlete with some press, but overall significance of the subject is questionable. Prod removed. —Swpb^talk 14:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While presently failing WP:NTRACK, she does seem to pass WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:GNG as this article from a national publication specifically covers her remarkable feat in winning the 5k, 3200m, and 1600m races at the national outdoor high school championships. Pinging Hmlarson as the editor who deprodded the article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:ATD, the policy (w/ emphasis added in bold) is "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." The subject of this article meets WP:GNG criteria w/ adequate sourcing. The article could use some cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article requires updating and possible expansion, not deletion. The above votes provide the necessary evidence. Thmazing (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army Marksmanship Unit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Article was previously deleted under CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is an important article, as they have sponsored many great shooters such as KC Eusebio, Max Michel and Daniel Horner. Sauer202 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source of many U.S. Olympians, prominent role internationally in shooting sports, well-known unit within the U.S. military. --- Evans1982 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by the others, this unit is a highly significant entity within the world of competitive marksmanship. Google searches reveal plenty of coverage, including this 2008 New York Times article about the unit and a similar 1985 piece from the Associated Press. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant unit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Got7. And I will protect the page so it cannot be turned back into an article. Jenks24 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tuan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is the third or fourth time a page for this person is being deleted and while it seems to be different from the last version I saw nothing has changed in the time since that page was removed to have made this person individually notable. Peachywink (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect and perhaps protect if needed as there's certainly no better independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect will prevent its re-creation. Deletion and salting will be a good decision. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to GOT7 - And at this point, salt might be indicated, since it keeps getting recreated, with no improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian National Union (UNU)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable group with very little coverage, and may be just a few guys. Much of the article is copied from Social-National Assembly. Please be aware there is a much more notable group sharing the same name. Blackguard 09:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be sufficient coverage, and has formed paramilitary unit of its own. --Soman (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage; note article exists across 11 languages. Directorate of Ukraine (formed 1918) does not have the same name. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle A. Harris

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to warrant own article...information may be moved more usably to Political history of Chicago. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She's a current Alderman, and heads the Chicago City Council's powerful rules committee. She's notable enough for the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, NBC News, WTTW. Victor Grigas (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago is an internationally famous global city, which is the rarefied "elite" class of cities in which we do accept the city council as an office that satisfies WP:NPOL — while it's certainly true that not all of her colleagues actually have articles yet, by far the majority do. The article definitely needs some improvement, I won't argue with that — but it already isn't entirely unsourced, further sourceability is definitely attainable, and a valid claim of notability is present. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think any modern Chicago alderman would satisfy the GNG with ease. (And even for 19th century aldermen, I would bet that significant material exists in print.) Victor Grigas has already shared some of the sources that are available in this specific case. A proper article on the political history of Chicago would be too broad to include biographies on any individual aldermen, so a merge is not a good idea. Zagalejo^^^ 06:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marģers Krams

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. the mere 5 gnews hits merely confirm the person held this role, nothing indepth LibStar (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mounao Thoibi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems pretty clearly non notable. I can't find any significant independent reporting about this film, only blog, a Facebook page, and a load of download/watch online sites. Chazchaz101 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expended searches:

director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

story:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

screenplay:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

and for Indian topics, WP:INDAFD: "Mounao Thoibi" "Romi Meitei" "Laishram Santosh" "Rakesh Rosha" "Bala Hijam" "RT Films"

Comment: As the topic does seem sourcable away from the social media and download sites which speak toward even the most notable of films, it is not so "pretty clearly non notable". I'll do some work before reporting back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was waiting to see if there was any improvement. I can't find anything to help, and in its current state doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Malan Breton. Any merger from the history is an editorial matter subject to editorial consensus as always. Sandstein 19:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malan's Musings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by Malan Breton's PR, (a major conflict of interest). Almost completely sourced to primary sources. I do not see evidence that Breton's column, no matter how long-running, deserves its own article. Mabalu (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malan Breton. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the person. It is already sufficiently covered there, so there is nothing here worth merging. No possible separate notability. The bio article and other pages linking there need attention for the presence of promotionalism as well. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be nothing to redirect to. Malan Breton has just been protected against further sockpuppet edits by Jasonbenz2 and has been retagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. The entire WP:Walled garden may be coming down. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, another editor has removed the speedy tag and done clean up. A merge is indeed possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Malan Breton. Plausible search target. sst✈^(discuss) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malan Breton. Don't believe merge is warranted, since the parent article already contains all the pertinent info, but SSTflyer is definitely correct that this is a plausible search target, but that would be covered by the redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFocus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam article created by single-purpose account for promotional purposes. Questionable notability and weak references. Citobun (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage. Some fringe trade journals, PR/marketing websites - yes. Mentions in passing in them? Yes. Notable? No. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. sst✈^(discuss) 10:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Miller (Internet celebrity)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References don't support notability. Currently all that's in the article is a bunch of first-party accounts from Youtube and social media. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Moriarty specifically the comment by User:czar. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep as having multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources for WP:GNG, such as WP:VG/RS. [5][6][7][8][9] (lesser [10], not on list [11][12]). The article seems to imply notable presence and some of it can probably be sourced from a variety of other sources. I'm always iffy on people's notability, as sources are usually either in relation to their work or direct interviews. But I would say it seems sufficient for GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Game Awards [13] win looks good and gives some coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep He is one of the most well known and influential internet podcasters and certainly deserves an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep He has one of the top podcasts on the internet and deserves this entry for all the years he's put into his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.204.140 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that articles are primarily decided based on whether the topic is notable in Wikipeda terms, that is, meets WP:GNG criteria - multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. While being influential/famous presumes notability, it is the existence of sources that determines so on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has to be verifiable and that is done by sourcing. Nothing to do with "deserving" or any other measure. Deletion arguments that do not provide or dispute such sources are typically not relevant or accounted for. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two of the !votes above do not provide guideline-based rationales for retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep has just won The Game Awards 2015 in "trending gamer" category [14]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Deleted or Redircted to IGN, I never heard him, I assuming he probably or super oblivously self-embarssed sterotypical hipster gamer from judging by his look? And really?!?, He got his page just quick only because people remember him recently doesnt help his page to stand up? 70.61.121.86 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically WP:IDONTLIKE ? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly sure? 70.61.121.86 (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:IMSUREIDONTLIKE. OK got it. Thanks for your contribution. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Put still they souldnt call him as real Gamer of this year for 2015 put in same time as Ex-IGN Editor, Maybe dont to be somewhat unintentional boost his own ego, I only thought want Markiplier won, To replace PewDiePie this time?, Put anyway what you really been immature right now, Seen is oblivously red link with not in used in simliar way like WP:IDONTLIKE 70.61.121.86 (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Jules is getting at is that discussions on Wikipedia are not votes and are considered in terms of arguments. In this case, the only really relevant argument is whether Wikipedia's notability criteria are met - multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Saying "keep" or "delete" without basing this on Wikipedia's policies/guidelines is otherwise pointless. Whether you have heard of him or believe he deserves a page is irrelevant. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page needs some cleaning up to make it a lot less "crufty", however he clearly meets WP:GNG. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Del Rico

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROD was contested by an IP who says he is Del Rico. There is no indication that this meets WP:ENT. The sources are external links to IMDB, or worse, most of which don't actually mention Del Rico at all. He has had two film roles, both very minor. Grayfell (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this even likely speedy and PROD material as he only has two films, both of not outstandingly notability for him so he's clearly not notable. Notifying tagger RichardOSmith. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete just because a road comic doesn't get high profile publicity shouldn't be a reason to discredit my Stand Up career here on Wikipedia! Yes my two movie roles are not huge box office films but, they are still work that I have done in film. You have Jon Caparulo on Wikipedia and he was a doorman at the Comedy Store when I was performing Stand Up there. I don't get it, why so adamant to delete my article???
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. sst✈^(discuss) 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is a not a place to advertise (although many companies try). Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nerul Balaji Temple, Maharashtra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims no notability, fails WP:GNG §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have liked to see a fuller nomination; Indian subjects can be difficult for the rest of us. At first glance this looks like one of those impressive south Indian temple towers from centuries ago -- but if I understand it correctly, this is actually a geographically displaced modern replica of the Venkateswara Temple,[15] something akin to a Las Vegas Eiffel tower. It could still be notable according to WP:GNG (if there are better sources out there), but it can hardly be important in itself. It is probably better to just mention it with a sentence or two within some other article. --Hegvald (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discoveredindia.com doesn't seem to be much a reliable source to believe on. The temple is definitely not some centuries old one, but could be a scaled down replica. But had it been a replica it would have received some press coverage at inaugural or even while in the making. Honestly I feel, this claim of it being a replica is just a poor OR as many south-Indian temples show similar architecture styles and layouts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough on searches to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to JD Sports. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 10:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloggs.co.uk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:JussiJankulovski (creator, SPA) with the following rationale "Added sources from Econsultancy and York Press." Neither helps much; all the sources present and all I can find are niche/local, trade journals, or straight press-releases, as well as mentions in passing - primarily about a store opening somewhere. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough here for a very short page or possibly just a redirection to a merged JD Sports. I don't think it is so unbelievable that someone might look for information about the brand and ownership, and I think there is enough notability to do that. But agree the press releases and details about store opening are pretty weak. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to JD Sports. Not notable enough for a standalone article and clearly WP:ARTSPAM created by single-purpose account. Citobun (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with JD - No evidence of any notability so doesn't really warrant an article IMHO, Better off merged/. –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esfandiar Baharmast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Number 57 with the following rationale "World Cup referee deserves a proper discussion at AfD". Fair enough, let's discuss why this person should be notable, keeping in mind that per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability, referees are not notable by the virtue of their profession - they have to pass WP:BIO/GNG on a case-by-case basis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aka Esse Baharmast, articles like this and others show sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 12:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Article does need improvement. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show that plenty? Outside [16] and [17], both rather niche than mainstream, I am not seeing much, even searching for his "Esse" name version. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG Spiderone 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE as in invalid AfD vote rationale. You have to say why you think he is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few articles/pages from a book on him. [18] [19] [20] Admittedly, his publicity is mostly related to one incident but I'd still say that's enough to pass him. It should probably be moved to "Esse Baharmast" but that's a discussion for another day. Spiderone 09:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also potentially notable for being the first American referee to officiate for two matches in a single World Cup. [21] Spiderone 09:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paywizard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam, note the creator's clear SPA/COI from their username, User:PayWizard plc. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Dalliance with the following rationale "enough refs. here to justify taking to AfD". Ok, so we are here - there are plenty of refs, and they all seem unreliable, niche, not-in-depth, and so on. I don't see anything better. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Should have been speedily deleted as soon as it was created two years ago for unambiguous advertising and clear COI. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Most other main contributors are also suspect SPAs. Despite existing for two years the content is still entirely advertising with nothing worth keeping. Google results for the subject are very sparse. Citobun (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up enough that it might be notable, but the article's promotional air would suggest WP:TNT is appropriate. Per WP:DEL4. The article has been tagged for over two years regarding its tone, without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Waziristan#History or Waziristan Accord. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A complete WP:COATRACK, there seems to be only two sources which make passing mentions of this so called "entity", nothing more. It survived two AFD's simply due to the fact that no one bothered to ask for sources and the argument "OH there are a lot of sources, I just cannot link them right now" was considered to be enough. The hilarious thing is that the entire wikipedia article about this "state" does not mention the state. This is like the article about "Taliban" not using the word "Taliban" in the entire article except the lede. This should be a SNOW for delete to be frank. Furthermore, I see from previous AFD discussions that not a single editor who voted for keep took the time to present any of his sources, they were just commenting saying "Oh there are a lot of reliabel sources out there". So this time, anyone who votes keep should be kind enough to include the links to sources which discuss this topic in depth. Otherwise such a comment appears to be mere words without any merit. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before moving on to the content, I think the question here is whether there is any legitimacy/notability in the term. It seems to me that there are quite a number of books which use this phrase which could be considered to be reliable sources. These include this book and this book, both from 2013. There seem to be a fair number of others too, some apparently reporting that the previous President Musharraf negotiated a peace accord with them in 2006.

I can't really see a problem with the content, providing it is improved with better references. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Waziristan#History or Waziristan Accord. Now that the WP:COATRACK seems to have been cleaned up, the remaining summary can be easily integrated IMHO. Although I've found many sources on Google Books and News that mention IEoW, none really go in depth. A stand-alone article thus would probably not pass WP:GNG's significant coverage. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waziristan#History or Waziristan Accord, as there is not much out there, and it is all about Taliban. Ceosad (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Bogdanov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and improvable especially with its current version and the best links I found was only this, this, this and this. It's worth noting it seems the subject himself started this in April 2008 and frankly it hasn't changed much since. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first two Glasgow Herald refs on the article, this news item, the Birmingham Post article that it's in the 3rd link provided by the nominator... those four articles are buttressed by a few other Gnews hits that I think he just meets WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zed (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable and improvable company article given the current version and the best I found was simply this, this and this which are hardly enough to suggest better improvement even if this article claims they are the "leading mobile phone value-added services (MVAS) player in the world in terms of revenue and geographical footprint". I honestly haven't looked closely at Spanish news sourced as it won't be simple and frankly there's nothing to suggest optimistism for searching further. Notifying Spanish users Vrac and Crystallizedcarbon (que bueno verlos otra ves, hermanos! ) who may have some Spanish insight and also tagger Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure puffery; no solid indication of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but trim down puffery and content not referenced by reliable sources. I think the article could be neutralized, and there is enough non-routine coverage from independent reliable sources in this case to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Here are just three examples of reliable sources in Spanish that I believe do satisfy those requirements: Article from El Confidencial, Article from El País and Article from ABC. Regards to SwisterTwister and others from this side of the pond.--Crystallized C (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to the article being kept if it can be improved and I may also search some Spanish newspapers later. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Amigo

, I just checked La Razón (Madrid) and El Mundo (Spain) and they also have articles that talk about the company. If I have some time latter on the week and nobody else takes the challenge, I may try to neutralize the article myself. Saludos.--Crystallized C (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have neutralized the products and services section and added some references, the article still needs more work.--Crystallized C (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , but move to Zed Group. the larger unit that contains a number of other related firms. There seems to be enough material for notability DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DGG it makes sense to move the article to Zed Group.--Crystallized C (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coimbatore-Salem MEMU

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Orphan. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:GNG. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City Light News

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here is the best info I could find on this paper. [22] Does it pass GNG? Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NME guideline on Newspapers, etc. #5. There are additional sources such as [23] for notability, [24] for evidence that this is a source that is used to document local events in a niche community per the guideline, and [25], which doesn't go to notability (since it is a directory listing), but does help allay verifiability concerns.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We don't get to say it is important, we have to have sources to show it is seen as such. [26] is the best source, and doing some snippet digging it seems to go for at least a few sentences. But that aside, I see nothing; no mention on Google Scholar. There is niche coverage of it in [27]. I'll not vote weak delete for AGFing the book and assuming it discusses this media a bit more, but this is pretty borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A grand total of 700 subscribers? Local Christian monthly? This fails notability by a mile. Just more of Neelix's house of cards created for his own idiosyncratic promotional purposes. Softlavender (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads in its entirety "City Light News is a Christian monthly newspaper based in Calgary. It is delivered to over 700 locations in central and southern Alberta on the last Sunday of each month.[citation needed] Peter McManus is the editor and publisher. It was first published in 1987." Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the sources cited above fail to demonstrate notability. The talk page says that it is cited in various media, which do sound like WP:reliable sources; but not every outlet cited in RS is itself a RS, nor is it thereby notable. It can be useful to keep articles about specialist/minority media, but this one does not add value to the encyclopedia. – Fayenatic London 23:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As premature. Can be editorially redirected perhaps. Sandstein 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shhuddhi (2016 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page can be created once the principle photography of the film starts and that will happen only in January 2016 Rajeshbieee (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Film's cast has been revealed. Needs to be improved. D'SuperHero (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary delete as while film's production is getting a lot of coverage it has not yet been confirmed as filming... and as soon as filming is confirmed, the article can be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Due to the topic sourcability meeting WP:GNG [28][29] even if premature for an article, it would make sense to redirect this to its sourcable director Karan Malhotra for a short time. If made it can come back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator please check to see if this is a recreation of Shhuddhi? If it is, then we should delete per criteria G4. BOVINEBOY2008 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008: As sometimes happens, that earlier version was simply Too Soon, and this newer version is different enough to not fall under G4. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} , Admin, 23:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, as pointed out by MichaelQSchmidt - If the film gets made, then the article can be recreated. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Rupert and the Frog Song. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert The Bear

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The main issue is the lack of notability. Upon a web search, there is clearly confusion between "Rupert the Bear" (an unreleased album) and "Rupert the Bear and the Frog Song." The guideline for unreleased material setup by WP:Music suggests that if this was a scrapped album by the Paul McCartney, then it belongs on his main page, and not a independent article. However, as I can imagine, there would be a few editors that would object. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 03:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If parts of the album were worked into the animated film, then we could probably justify an article on one thing rather than two articles on both the film and the album. I am finding some passing mentions of the album, but they're all pretty much in passing. ([30]) So maybe a merge into the film's article? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rupert and the Frog Song. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We should probably keep the redirect, whether or not the album article is kept. Rupert Bear or The Adventures of Rupert Bear (as "Rupert The Bear" occurs only in the theme song to the TV series) seem like appropriate targets. Tevildo (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rupert and the Frog Song as per above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Phillips (actress)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wow. Does not come near GNG or any other notability guideline. John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable at this time and no notability and improvement to convince keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – most search results are unrelated to the topic. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. sst✈^(discuss) 10:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Regiment Marching Band

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails notability per WP:Band. The article makes a big deal about this band making the finals of a competition, though in the end it got 10th place. I also feel there's a conflict of interest with the page's author. If anything this should be a redirect to Blue Springs High School which right now is a redirect itself. FallingGravity (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as I found some coverage at News, browsers and Highbeam but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of organization (ecology)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This information can easily be found on other articles. RES2773 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to ecology, where levels can be explained in context, not isolation. This article reads like the Cliff's Notes version of an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Scott (VanossGaming)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Adam9007 (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No sources to be found. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete? You mean snowball delete? Lack of sources isn't a speedy criterion. Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. No independent sources to verify notability. The article even contradicts its supposed notability with "quietly known as." GabeIglesia (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up any substantial coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Webber

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a vanity page. Has clear COI and SPA issues. Poor article in general (just an extended resume painting subject in positive light), does not seem to me to be notable enough to justify an article. No significant coverage in respectable outlets. Rayman60 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing convincingly better aside from some news notices and republished news notices at Highbeam (only 1) and browsers (a few). Simply nothing for a better article yet, SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. CEO of one notable company , Innerphase, and one probably notable one, Virtual Piggy. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Becoming a CEO makes you accomplished, not necessarily notable. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cutlass Music Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No releases can be found according to discogs or google. Huge COI/SPA activity. 733 Facebook fans, 54 Twitter followers (no tweets for 18 months). 1 or 2 releases (self-released on iTunes) with no reference to label, no further info via google. Website no longer working. Reference #2 is to a release on another label. No specific guidance on label notability, but this feels far off any notability guidelines. Rayman60 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe even speedy. Non-notable label. No independent coverage, no length of history, no roster of notable artists. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews from New York City

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely useless list. Fraught with typographical and stylistic errors and comes nowhere near the scope of what this article should include, namely being hundreds if not thousands of entries longer. Even if it were an accurate and full list it would add nothing to the encyclopedia, but as it is not even that, it is less than useless. JesseRafe (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep more than satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BLPCAT. The history of Jews in New York City is a well-known part of American culture.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A "strong" keep? Did you read the article or just see the title? This was very recently created and only edited by a few editors who have very few edits among them and almost every entry has flaws in style or substance. And the article comes nowhere near the scope of its intended topic, just seems like a vanity page/project for the User:Ethanjesse who has already blanked this page. JesseRafe (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is very relevant, your argument doesn't have any reasoning to delete it. New York is one the most largely populated Jewish areas in the world. As this list shows, there are also many famous people. I also worked very hard on creating, researching, editing, and writing this page. It took me 8 weeks to create this. This is one of my first Wikipedia creates, and I don't think this should be deleted.

How is this article "useless"? This lists over 70 famous people from New York City. This article is error free and accurate.

Comment User:EthanDobres (above unsigned) is unambiguously the same user as User:Ethanjesse given their short contribution history and significant overlap. This is the second time this user has interfered with this proceeding. JesseRafe (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topical comment The article is useless, for the following reasons: It is not an article it is a list. As such it is wp:listcruft and has no substantive merit. While the assertion that it "lists over 70 famous people from New York City" may be true - why does that matter? There are over a hundred thousand famous people from NYC. And tens of thousands of them are Jewish. Thus this article fails to achieve what it sets out to do, and why should it even try to do that? What purpose does an endless serve? Should this be converted into an endless list of thousands of entries? What is the encyclopedic value of that? As to whether it is "error free" or/and "accurate" that is patently false. Ethan Jesse Dobres, since you are one person, please learn how to use capital letters. I see that you actually are 11 years old, not merely someone who writes like one. This article, much like the Mandel Brothers piece seem to be unambiguous vanity pieces written by someone just for the sake of writing one. They are unencyclopedic and both have a tenuous grasp on basic English sentence structure and punctuation/capitalization norms. JesseRafe (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator. Ethanjesse and EthanDobres are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethanjesse.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Jewishness and notability criteria are POV. Such a list can be added to Jews in New York City if anything. Zezen (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ at least as far as I can see. New York City certainly has a notable Jewish population and history. On the face of it, I'm not seeing why this list is "less than useless" and not a viable list per Category:Lists of American Jews and the underpopulated main List of American Jews. The nominator's argument that is useless, less than useless, completely useless and why does it matter etc just doesn't add up to a compelling argument, for me. As for the concern that this list could grow to thousands of names, WP:LISTPEOPLE does provide parameters for how people are included in standalone lists. And of course WP:NOTPAPER applies. Now, as with all lists and categories of people by religion we'd need to be careful that we're not adding names where Jewishness is not cited reliably in the article. And the sock puppetry is a concern. But I don't see a compelling reason to delete. I don't agree that Wikipedia:Listcruft applies in this case, in fact, the nominated list would seem to be a valid example of a standalone list according to that short essay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, of course New York and its Jewry are well established. And there already are articles aplenty on the topic. This adds nothing of value, is not even close to the scope that is necessary for the topic; it is poorly written and researched and cited. It is obviously an 11-year-old's vanity project just so he could say "I made an article on Wikipedia", which is exactly what his defense of the deletion was. Many of the entries are not from New York in the first place.

I see well if the list is so fundamentally flawed, then I guess WP:TNT could apply. I have to say I don't think we should be using terms like "11-year-old's vanity project." There are people of all ages who are creating content here because they find it rewarding and we should not be singling out minors for scorn when they do that. That said, I see he has been blocked and I've removed my keep !vote, though if someone wanted to recreate such a list later I think it could be a very valid ist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator has been blocked, as well as a sock and an IP, now using IP User:65.127.85.11 to delete this topic entirely as well as the deletion notice on other non-encyclopedic article Mandel Brothers. JesseRafe (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Held over twice?!?! Really??? While a history of the Jews of New York City is easily, easily over the GNG bar, what we have here is an uncompletable list with uncertain inclusion parameters. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with nominator. Also note: WP:NOTDIRECTORY; Wikipedia:Listcruft; WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:MADEUP; and Wikipedia:Libel is a strong possibility in instances when subjects deny, hide, dislike or oppose any mention, in spite of verified information, of themselves as being "Jews" or "Jewish" or having any connections with Judaism in any way. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPOV list, identifying many who do not declare or even have an objective Jewish identity as such. Awful citation as well. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Conventions in Pictures

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to me to be an advertisement, but looking for a second opinion. The article itself makes no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:GNG. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 01:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Getting nominated for a TedxAmsterdam Award isn't very difficult to do, since it seems like all you need to do is submit an application. However it was a finalist (even made it into the top three, which helps matters some but I'm unable to locate who won, which is what ultimately matters with awards. However, there's also the issue of whether or not an award given by an independent portion of TED is notable enough to give partial notability, but we'll cross that bridge if I can find anything to show that it won. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't win. The Alzheimer's one did. On a side note, the award does seem to garner quite a bit of press so the award itself would show notability for the winner, however per guidelines it will only give notability for the winner and not the nominees. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the idea behind this is a good one and I solidly wish it'd received more coverage, unfortunately it never received anything beyond the TedxAmsterdam nod, which cannot show notability since it's just a nomination. It received a brief mention in Baaz, but only an offhand mention in regards to the award ceremony, which isn't enough. As far as I can tell, this project is still under development, so hopefully in the future it'll receive more coverage, but right now it's just far WP:TOOSOON for it to have an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestle Rampage

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Cult of Green (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'keep' ist been part of NWA and Zero1 Pro Wrestling and Shinsuke Nakamura and all of The Mighty Don't Kneel has been there and on November 28, 2015 at Titanium Security Arena will host the biggest show in Australian wrestling history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.129.6 (talk • contribs) — 59.101.129.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Biggest show in Australian wrestling history my rear end. That belongs to Global Warning in 2002. Mega Z090 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to derive notability from Zero 1 and has much unsourced information with tags dating back to January 2015. Can't see at a glance how this can be saved. Claim made above by the IP (who as an aside is subject to an SPI) is as I stated above ridiculous, and frankly blatantly unsourced to boot. Mega Z090 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'~~keep~~' Global Warning in 2002 was done by wwe witch is American Wrestle Rampage is Australian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.157.223 (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Mega Z090 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll admit pro wrestling isn't my thing, but I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with no significant independent sources.Mdtemp (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG; I've been unable to find significant reliable coverage.LM2000 (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it has connections to Nakamura, Zero 1, NWA, etc. this notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only explicit opinions are for deletion, and I can't see anybody taking the walls of text about how important, etc., this person is seriously - at least not in terms of our inclusion guidelines, which is what matters. Sandstein 17:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Minieri

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking support for claims. reddogsix (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mr Gianluca Minieri recently has been nominated most influential trader in the financial Markets and is a vital source for Finance Universities to understand the work mr Minieri has done and must have a knowledge of him as an individual and his background as a university course requirement. Furthermore Mr Gianluca has been featured on Bloomberg financial magazines almost every month now and is a key topic for financial researchers and Bankers. His work has a an immediate effect on the global markets of Asia, Europe and America. He is a key individual with more then sufficient references of importance through the hundreds of interviews and Financial newspapers and magazine interviews on such well known website like Trading Desk, Bloomberg and many others. Interviewers and journalist find great use in this page in order to understand his work carried out. Likewise we, the university association of Finance request that this page is kept as wikipedia is a source of great importance to our alumni and Mr Gianluca is a key element in not only student research but Working colleagues and financial market associates as a whole. Thank you Please note all research was done from articles and references are currently published and researched.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all found links but essentially all trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is an obvious fact that articles will be partially talking about Mr Minieri as he is not a singer or actor but Executive vice president and global head of Trading In a trading bank. in the world of finance magazines rely on multiple opinions of traders but Mr Minieri has been nominated One of the most influential traders of 2015 making him a key subject in the study of finance and the markets. No banker or in fact trader will have an article of his own as for people in the banking industry there is no interest in an extremely long biography but rather on the individual as well as his work and opinions of others. This Article is key in the studies of Journalists for interviews, students at university level and traders. As you can see if you were to read articles about other top traders on wikipedia trivial mentions will always be the case but for sure to not signify non importance of an individual as in Trading magazines like Bloomberg where mr minieri was featured It is a normal custom to talk partially about him/her. The links and references are for use of confirming the status of the individual like mr Minieri and confirming the claimed work he has done. Furthermore Financial magazines like Bloomberg do not decide to write articles regarding any person but only key individuals of interest which is why Mr Minieri was Chosen. With no doubt I support that this article should be kept and all required information was provided in order to keep it active. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourJames100 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, if there are only trivial mentions of the individual, he will not meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Valid support per Wikipedia guidelines is the key to an individual's notability. reddogsix (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -There are not only trivial mentions but if someone actually went through the links it would be very obvious that that is not the case. All references are current and active, they are genuine from large important publishers. there are articles about Mr Minieri only. Wikipedia is a place where articles for use of students and professionals must be uploaded which can be of their interest and of use. We for a fact know this individual is a key source of research in the financial market. I would like to bring this matter forward to a supervisor possibly as I do feel this time there is absolutely no attempt to take my request and opinion into consideration nor anyone is actually reading what I am writing. I think this ignorant attitude from wikipedia is shameful and as a major supporter and donator the site I think it is a shameful behaviour and I will be talking to the university association in order to bring consequences forward in terms of stop donations. Subsequently what I am saying is not that someone can upload what he/she wants when he/she makes donations but in my case I am responsible of teaching finance, I have included all needed and required references, and I know this individual is key in the financial market, I should have the right to upload this article. It is not my fault that whom is in the office like the wikipedia administrators have no knowledge of bankers and traders but it is understandable as you work in a different sector. As much as you people know about Justin Bieber and other singers and actors, for us these are our individuals of importance which benefit hundreds of people and it is unfair that working people an students must suffer consequences of the lack of knowledge regarding these individuals from wikipedia. I wish you take this matter forward if possible with whoever is responsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourJames100 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you really think making threats will help you case? There are no supervisors in Wikipedia, this is a community driven encyclopedia. If you are not aware of that I would question your knowledge and subsequent "donations" to Wikipedia. Since you created the article, you have the WP:BURDEN to provide reliable support for the article, something you have failed to do. I would also strongly suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL and WP:LEGAL before responding further. reddogsix (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no threat being made, your lack of knowledge is a threat to this site. This is perfect proof that you do not read what I am writing. Please I wish to speak to someone responsible regarding the article or to a supervisor, I don't have time to waste on stupid discussions that don't go anywhere. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by YourJames100 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A comment like, "I will be talking to the university association in order to bring consequences forward in terms of stop(sic) donations" certainly is a threat. Again, there is no supervisor, it you wish to get help I suggest you go to WP:EAR for help. Oh, and once again, please read WP:UNCIVIL before responding on this page - your comments really do not assume good faith. reddogsix (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -No use in commenting with someone like you. My reasons were listed above and now you are harassing me and you have gone off topic. I have signalled your behaviour to wikipedia. Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourJames100 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm seeing good secondary sources which reference Minieri as an expert, but on the other these tend to be brief mentions and I've not been able to find anything particularly substantive which suggests he is specifically notable as an individual. I can believe that it is possible he is notable and that there are references which describe his important contributions to the field, but I'm not seeing them. JMWt (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a finance student from the institute of finance of Manhattan. I have opened a case in the univeristy and institute to help keep this page live as it was great use to me in my last essay. Your comments are correct and much more fair then your last collegue as I can see. I have foun this article which is only about mr minieri and his number 46 banker in the world interview. http://www.fi-desk.com/onthe-desk-gianluca-minieri-pioneer-investments/

Should I include it in the links? Well, I will attempt to. Other students are searching further information and articles based on the magazines we have in university where mr minieri was on. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.224.5 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, the reference you provided is a primary reference - in interview - the article still lacks secondary references. reddogsix (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all honesty I dont still understand what else wikipedia could possibly want. Mr minieri is a banker and trader, not a singer or actor. It is very different in terms of searching for sources. The amount of sources this page has are mpre then can be found onany banker and in my opinion do demonstarte his status and importance. On the other hand this article is of great use to students like us. What else can be done, can you kindly look for links as well to help keep this page up. We really need it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.194 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect as this seems very logical. If someone feels strongly about it, the article is still in history (NAC)Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Classic New Zealand

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a fork of the MTV Classic Australia article. Given the Australian article has all relevant New Zealand information with additional referencing it would be better to delete the New Zealand page and rename the Australian page (e.g. MTV Classic (Australia & New Zealand)) Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with the Australian article and rename as per nom. Mattlore (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tytus Bergstrom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

vanity page. fails notability. Tone and content unsuitable, too fluffy/PR-ey. created by SPA/COI editor who also wrote an extensive article on subject's project Reality TV Movie - follow the deletion discussion for that here. Rayman60 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST, fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and fails WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did manage to salvage the article for In Search of Lovecraft, which so far appears to be the one thing he's most notable for. If all else fails, we can delete and redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leery of the United States Dance Championships claim. It's backed up by a press release that just states "Tytus Bergstrom, former U.S Latin Dance Champion" and not much else about him - it's not even about the USDC. This means that it's entirely possible that what he won wasn't even through the USDC, which is possible given that there are a lot of similarly titled competitions out there - anyone who has ever participated in a beauty pageant AfD can vouch for this. I also cannot find anything while searching for his name and the name of the competition. There are plenty of primary sources from Bergstrom himself and from places that have hired him, but I can't actually find anything from USDC and I can't see his name listed on their website anywhere. This means that for all practical purposes we have to consider this claim as one that cannot show notability. Other than that, the article claims that he taught notable people, however that in and of itself doesn't always guarantee notability - the big thing about this is that you have to show where his teaching was notable by way of multiple independent RS that discuss him. The only non-primary source in the article is from the Spartan Daily, a college newspaper. The link isn't showing up properly, but a look through the Wayback Machine shows that it was a passing, trivial mention in regards to a dancing competition that occurred on campus. College newspapers are occasionally usable if they're known for being very reliable, however even then the coverage would need to be secondary and in-depth. A passing mention in an article about something that happened on campus does not accomplish this. I'm still digging for sources, so it's still possible I might find something out there, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible redirect. I can find nothing out there to show that Bergstrom is notable for his dancing career. He has one film under his belt that is notable, the Lovecraft film, but at this point in time he lacks coverage for anything else that would show notability. There are one or two brief mentions here and there in relation to something else, but never in any context that would establish notability for him as a performer or educator. It's possible that there is coverage out there that predates the Internet given that the most notable portions of his career occurred during '92 and '93, but if it exists it's fairly well buried and there's nothing recording any of this other than Bergstrom himself or his representatives. Even a search on Highbeam brings up nothing, as does a search via Drexel's library database. We could redirect to the article for the Lovecraft film, but the question here is whether or not it's really worth redirecting or not. Redirects are cheap, but I've heard the argument that it doesn't really help much unless the role is particularly well known. I figure I'll leave that up for the closing admin. Either way, the promotional nature of the article makes me believe that its history should be deleted prior to this redirect's creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Winning in the amateur category of that dance championship does not appear to confer notability. If every amateur participant and winner of every competition of this ilk had an article, we'd already have been overrun by the sheer volume of profiles on the project. If appearing in In Search of Lovecraft is their only other claim to fame, that to me indicates failure of notability too. It was so poorly received and so minimally distributed, that again, if every person with a significant role in every film of similar standing had an article, the whole encyclopaedia would effectively be an imdb-esque directory with a little bit of side content. Rayman60 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and the promotional tone of the article begs for WP:TNT, even if there was something to save. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep rationales are the consensus. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Park (Kamloops)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a random city park created so it could be linked to [31] Tara Teng. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion this park is notable due to its local significance, and because it has sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Tripadvisor has it ranked as the #1 thing to do in Kamloops. I'd say it's a major urban park for that city, and meets WP:GEOLAND. It is adequately referenced. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor park in a small town. Fails notability. Just more of Neelix's promo activity. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Douglas Park (Langley), this one does seem to be considerably better sourced — even stretching into published books and extralocal media. While it's true that not all municipal parks get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist, they are allowed if you can make and source a substantive claim of notability — and with nine valid citations to a variety of sources, this one does have a valid WP:GNG claim to being at least somewhat more notable than the norm. As problematic as Neelix's Tara Teng obsession could be, not everything he did was always without justification — each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits, rather than being automatically shitcanned just because Neelix. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Langley, British Columbia (city)#Douglas Park. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Park (Langley)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

are local parks worthy of articles, because I've been to this one and it is of no real significance to anyone beyond the people living within a few blocks except for being the site of a Freedom Week event organized by Tara Teng [32] (recently this content was deleted). Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion this park is notable due to its local significance. Thparkth (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very minor park in very small town. Dies not meet notability requirements at all. This was just part of Neelix's Tara Teng walled garden (the mention of it in that article has been deleted by now from article trimming). Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards for city parks do allow some of them to make it into Wikipedia (for example, nobody would ever seriously suggest that we delete topics like Central Park, Stanley Park, Gorky Park, High Park or the Jardin des Champs-Élysées) — but they don't grant an automatic inclusion freebie to all municipal parks that can be shown to exist. But in this case there's no real claim of notability being made once you discount Neelix's misguided attempt to bestow notability on every single topic he could link in any way whatsoever to Tara Teng, and the level of sourcing is not adequate to fulfill WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Langley, British Columbia (city) § Douglas Park, which already has some information about the park. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official Langley site only has this to say about the park and its contents:

Douglas Park 206th Street & Douglas Crescent
This park has an accessible playground, 2 tennis courts, a water park (seasonal), bowling green, sports box, basketball hoops and public washrooms. Douglas Recreation Centre, situated in the park, offers many programs for the citizens of Langley and is also available for rentals such as wedding receptions or banquets, etc. For more information, phone (604) 514-2865.
Langley Spirit Square at Douglas Park - The Langley Spirit Square is a covered performance platform that can be book for medium to large public events. For information or to book the Spirit Square please call 604-514-2902. [33]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but other sources provide various coverage, such as [34], [35], [36]. Ultimately, it's mostly local, so I don't feel it qualifies for a standalone article. However, a merge would enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, per NA1000. sst✈^(discuss) 08:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Not enough for a standalone article. But would improve Langley, British Columbia (city) § Douglas Park as per Northamerica1000. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Being promotional is not an argument for deletion and there are no other arguments that support deletion. Renamed to "Air displacement plethysmography". (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 09:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whole-body air displacement plethysmography

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not an encyclopedic entry, but ultimately an advertisement for a commercial product. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article describes a properly-cited clinical technique with multiple reliable sources. It is therefore notable regardless of the apparent COI of the article's author and the fact that the two models of equipment mentioned are made by the same company. Clearly this feels somewhat uncomfortable but the topic is encyclopedic nonetheless. Someone did give the author a COI notice a year after he wrote the article; and as it happens he did contribute to related topics (not products) as well. I can't say I like it much but it's within the rules. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite a few hits on Google Scholar, including reviews. I do confess that I searched for air displacement plethysmography, which IMO should be the title; the interwiki links also don't use the "whole-body" prefix or tranlations thereof. So perhaps also a move to Air displacement plethysmography? - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. We can keep the "whole-body" bit as a redirect to the shorter title after this AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Welsh Isbell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just not seeing any significant independent coverage, or anything that would help this subject meet a specific notability guideline. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not exactly sure what you mean by significant independent coverage. But by notability, are you saying the article does not refer to a notable person? Because I think it does. Also, as this is my first Wikipedia article, I would have been mindful of choosing a username. I created this account for the purpose of this article. Hence, the username. I am not Scott Isbell.Swisbell (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, notability is the Wikipedia concept of who we should cover with an encyclopedia article and who we shouldn't. One of the neat things is that notability isn't just left up to opinion; we have some guidelines that can help to make that call. The general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is the easiest guideline to keep in mind, but there are also some specific guidelines for various types of people. WP:NMUSIC seems to apply in this case, but I can't determine how this subject would meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The reliable sources aren't there, nor do Google hits help. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:0:ABE6:78F9:225E:C72:122C (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources don't show notability per our guidelines at WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a heads up that I removed a lot of the article content because it was copied verbatim from the subject's website. I also removed a reference from The Atlantic because it discussed the ISIS attacks and made no reference to the subject. That material, of course, can be viewed by accessing the article's history. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akinlosotu (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)According to guidelines at WP:MUSIC, I believe subject satisfies notability with reference to points 1 and 5 under criterion for musicians and ensembles. Also, I believe the current state of the article is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. It is on this note that I plead for us to Keep article and work on it until it is worthy. I look forward to your response.Akinlosotu (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: criterion 1, I'm not sure that anything here really represents significant coverage. IMDB usually doesn't meet that standard, and neither would any of the content generated by Isbell or his associates (Talented Kids Depot, Niji Magazine, the Isbell website). Ralan Enterprises also seems to cover artists who solicit their coverage. School coverage (two of the sources) usually doesn't meet this criterion. The Boston Globe source seems promising, but it's very short and I think it's difficult to call that non-trivial. Re: criterion 5, the article doesn't suggest that Isbell has released two albums.

It's difficult to really compare this entry with those of other musicians, because we know there are other entries that also don't meet these notability criteria. The idea is that, as an encyclopedia, WP covers subjects that are already notable. It's just not the appropriate outlet for budding artists who are in need of help with SEO or PR in order to become notable. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akinlosotu (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I mis-cited criterion 5. I meant to cite criterion 4. <Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.> I believe this buttresses the Boston Globe source. Also, you mentioned before that there are certain guidelines for notability on WP, and cited references to buttress your point. Also, according to WP Guidelines, I wouldn't say the Boston Globe source is too short; it is a reliable source, and based on WP guidelines and guidelines at WP:MUSIC, I believe it passes this article for notability. Akinlosotu (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe source is not covering a national/international concert tour. It's very briefly covering Isbell's plans for his first festival performance. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the consensus that the subject neither meets the GNG nor the criteria of NMUSIC. While the Boston Globe article just barely is long enough to qualify as "significant coverage" of the subject, both the GNG and NMUSIC criterion #1 require multiple sources. The blizzard of primary webpages, blog posts, casual/fleeting mentions, user-inputted sources (such as IMDB) do not qualify, and none seem to be forthcoming. Ravenswing 05:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Riza Shaheen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an artist, written like a cross between a résumé and a public relations advertisement and citing exactly zero references except for a contextless linkfarm of primary sources in the external links section. This is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article, regardless of their field of endeavour — it takes reliable source coverage, but none of that has been shown here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source this properly. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any issues with the article. It talks about an artist like all other pages for artists. Message the writer with issues on the page instead of deletion keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirakhatriii (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be included in Wikipedia, an article has to be referenced to reliable source coverage in media which is independent of him — but virtually all of the sourcing here is to primary sources which cannot carry a person's notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is really bad and most of the sources/links don't demonstrate any notability at all, but this Last Known Pose book suggests that there might be something there - I'm not sure though. Is this a case of TNT (destroy article that would be more work to revise than to write from scratch), Bearcat, or do you think he is not notable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References have been added to demonstrate the notability of the artist and the importance of his work. Please share constructive comments on how to improve this article. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueljervois (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are virtually all still primary sources (his own website, the webpages of galleries with which he's been directly affiliated, etc.), and fail to constitute reliable source media coverage which is independent of his own public relations materials. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. kindly note that the references on which this article is based "constitute reliable source media coverage". The Guardian, The Times of India, The Artists Information Company, Flux Magazine, Manchester Evening News, Art Fund, The Reviews Hub, Art Now Pakistan, The Hindu, 2nd Generation, Creative Tourist, Manchester Wire amongst others are "independent of his own public relations materials." The artist has many publications to his name and this article is meant to inform those who are interested to learn more about his practice objectively. Further contributions by other readers are welcome to highlight his work. ===== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirakhatriii (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that you're overstating how "referenced" the article really is. There isn't, for example, a single reference to The Guardian anywhere in the article; that publication is mentioned only as the provider of a POV review quote which is sourced nowhere, and doesn't actually belong in our article at all per our rules about not turning the article into an advertisement for the subject instead of an encyclopedia article about the subject. Art Fund is a charitable organization, not media. Creative Tourist and The Reviews Hub and Manchester Wire fail our rules against sourcing to blogs. The reference to The Hindu isn't about him; it just mentions his name a single time as a passing namecheck in an article that's actually about somebody else. And on and so forth — nothing here comes anywhere near as close to being "reliable source media coverage" as you seem to think it does. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Seems a bit harsh. Presumably the Guardian think he is notable enough to mention an exhibition he is involved in. I agree it isn't enough, but it isn't nothing either (given that there are a lot of exhibitions which could be mentioned, and they've mentioned these). I don't think an article in a well-known media source which is written by journalists and is not an "opinion piece" can be considered to be a "POV article". Of course, one can disagree with the authors that this exhibition is notable, but the fact is that writers for this newspaper working in the normal editorial system think that this artist is notable. That meets the standard for independent assessment of notability. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely missing the point of what I even said about The Guardian: the most important point, the one you didn't address here at all, is that no reference details have been cited to verify that they really published the claimed content — it's just plopped into the article as an unsourced quote. Which means we can't verify whether it was made in an actual article about him, in a 50-word "things to do this weekend" blurb, as an aside in an article about somebody else, or what. And as an encyclopedia, we're not all that interested in the opinions that reviewers have expressed about the quality of his work anyway, but in what media have or haven't published about the objective facts of his career — because a Wikipedia article is not allowed to read like a public relations advertisement. And the standard for "independent assessment of notability" is that he has to be the subject of substantive coverage (not passing mentions in coverage of other things, not ten word review quotes, but substantive coverage) in multiple reliable sources (not just one). But the sourcing that's been proffered here so far fails to demonstrate that at all — it takes more than "has had his name mentioned in major newspapers" to get a person into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I don't understand. I'm not here talking about how a quote from the Guardian piece has been used in on the page, but the fact that the Guardian article exists. Which it does. And no, we're not just interested in the "objective facts of his career" primarily, but whether this artist is notable enough to have a wikipedia page about him. One criteria for the latter decision is whether he is noted in the media, and clearly this is a note in the media about his exhibition. It is clearly also more than a "mention" given it is a review of his exhibition with the clear implication that readers might like to go and witness his exhibition. That in and of itself is a claim to notability. Not enough on its own, I agree, but certainly something pointing toward it. JMWt (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what you've shown there is an 85-word blurb about him, which does not constitute substantive coverage. And every art exhibition that exists at all will be believed by somebody as something that "readers might like to go and witness" — but that's not a thing that entitles a person to a Wikipedia article, because it's a subjective statement of opinion. Our inclusion criteria are based on objective and quantifiable achievements, such as winning notable art awards or being the subject of enough media coverage that the person has satisfied WP:GNG, not just the ability to demonstrate that the person exists. But an 85-word blurb constitutes evidence of existence, not evidence of notability — especially if that 85-word blurb is the most solid source anywhere in the entire article. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After having researched this artist's work and read all his publications at the British Library and Live Art Development Agency's study room, it is evident how extensively his work has been written about by eminent scholars and academics. Cornerhouse publications have a significant book in the pipeline to be published this year celebrating his work over the last 20 years through a collection of essays and reflections.^[2] LADA is also releasing a DVD of his video works. The artist was nominated for the Northern Art prize in 2010. Notability is surely about contribution to knowledge rather than media endorsements alone. User:Samueljervois

References

^ http://www.bitsaa.org/news/20414/Baradwaj-Rangan-Baddy-bags-National-Film-Awards-for-Best-Film-Critic.htm
^ Shaheen, Qasim Riza. "The Last Known Pose". Cornerhouse Publications. Retrieved 18 November 2015.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waylander (band)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Certainly time for another AfD as my searches found nothing better than some passing mentions and even the listed sources are simply passing mentions themselves. The first AfD comments mentioned the label being notable but from what I've understood, it seems more like an obscure independent label which I've now PRODed as well after finding no better improvement. Notifying the only still active commenter Stifle. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Bio and review at Allmusic, this from Blabbermouth.net, but not much else found. I am aware, however, that some metal bands get considerable coverage in metal magazines without much appearing online (although the 'reviews' section of the band's website doesn't look promising), so am open to keeping this if more can be found. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NMG#5 as per last time. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stifle and Blackmetalbaz at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waylander (band), who wrote that the band passes WP:MUSIC by having albums on Century Media, Listenable and Blackend, all of which are notable.
Here is a source about the subject:
- Patterson, Dayal (2013). Black Metal: Evolution of the Cult. New York: Feral House. p. 410. ISBN 1936239760. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
  The book notes:
  Though Norway dominated folk black metal during the nineties, Ireland, another country with a rich history of folklore and folk music, also made something of a name for itself during this decade. Primordial, Cruachan, and Waylander are three respected Irish acts offering folk-influenced metal compositions, though it is undoubtedly Primordial who have maintained the closest relationship to black metal, to the extent that 1995 debut Imrama had only a few musical and thematic hints toward folk content.
  Although this is a passing mention, that the author called "Waylander" a "respected Irish act" that offered "folk-influenced metal compositions" strongly indicates that the band likely has received significant coverage in reliable offline metal magazines.
Cunard (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom 10

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No (or very weak) evidence of independent notability for this web column. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with reliable, independent, third party sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism-tagged since 2011. Majority of the sources are from espn.com itself. Article is mostly summary of the poll and does not establish that the poll is notable. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X96lee15 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2015‎ (UTC)
- Response true that many of the sources are ESPN which does not speak to notability of the article, but they can be used to source the article itself. There are other sources to establish the notability. While I grant they are listed as few, they should not be ignored.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Paulmcdonald: Paul, can you link to three examples of significant coverage of the Bottom 10 in "reliable, independent, third party sources," i.e., those that are not affiliated with ESPN, ABC, Disney, etc.? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think three is necessarily a "requirement" or threshold, but I just added two: Tulsa World and SportsEdge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Pamulmcdonald. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to ESPN.com. Not enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. As a concession we can merge, but it seems WP:UNDUE even there when there is no independent coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Bottom Ten is not solely an ESPN creation, and it has been a sports byword for decades. Steve Harvey's column (and coverage of his Bottom 10 in other sources) goes back to the 1960s [37][38] [39][40]. Here's a 1973 Sports Illustrated piece about Harvey and his column that goes into some detail about its early syndication history. [41] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: Each of the different "Bottom 10" iterations you have identified above are discretely different subjects, not a single "Bottom 10". Some "Bottom 10" subjects may be notable, others not. It does not appear there are sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources of ESPN's "Bottom 10" to support its notability, and some mention of it may be incorporated into the ESPN article. Likewise, if Sport Illustrated sports columnist Steve Harvey is notable, perhaps some mention of his "Bottom 10" column would be best incorporated there. Slamming this different subjects together in a single article is a mess, more like a disambiguation page than an article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect and misstates the sources. As spelled out in the sources I cited, Steve Harvey was an LA Times reporter who began his Bottom 10 in the 1960s, then began syndicating it. It was not a Sports Illustrated product. Independent coverage is here. The current ESPN column is (self-admittedly) a rendition of the same concept as Harvey's column. There's a clear topic here and it doesn't serve the reader to bury it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: My apologies. Please substitute Los Angeles Times (and Chicago Sun-Times) for Sports Illustrated in my comment above, and the basic premise still holds: what significant coverage in independent sources there is of the "Bottom 10" is about Steve Harvey's column, not about ESPN's "Bottom 10". Yes, one of your linked articles incidentally mentions ESPN, but the subject of the article is Colorado, not ESPN's "Bottom 10". This article hopelessly confuses Steve Harvey's probably notable "Bottom 10" sports column with ESPN's non-notable bit, which is admittedly a rip-off of Harvey's column. You are conflating two completely different subjects of the same name; they are not the same thing. To emphasize that point, according to one of the articles you linked above, Harvey apparently restarted his "Bottom 10" column in 2008, and it was not the same as ESPN's "Bottom 10". Having a single Wikipedia article for Steve Harvey's column (which is barely mentioned) and ESPN's schtick (for which no significant independent coverage exists) is a promotional mess. Virtually all of the coverage of the ESPN schtick is -- wait for it -- on ESPN or ESPN.com, and that's not independent coverage. If you want to keep this article title, it needs to be blown up and re-written as an article about Steve Harvey's column, not sourced with ESPN's non-independent, self-promotional coverage of itself. If you believe otherwise, please link to significant coverage of ESPN's "Bottom 10" in independent sources (i.e., those sources that are non affiliated with ESPN, ESPN.com, ABC, Disney, etc.). Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Mcdonald. 2605:A601:522:3A01:91E5:F0A6:4807:F8DA (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] ttp://www.bitsaa.org/news/20414/Baradwaj-Rangan-Baddy-bags-National-Film-Awards-for-Best-Film-Critic.htm

[2] Shaheen, Qasim Riza. "The Last Known Pose". Cornerhouse Publications. Retrieved 18 November 2015.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People watching}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard Arabic Technical Transliteration System}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikdash Arabic Transliteration Rules}}